-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Attacker goals #76
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Attacker goals #76
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Justin Cappos <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
threatmodel.md
Outdated
3. To have a party deploy a different artifact than the one requested, including an older version when the latest is requested. | ||
4. Disrupt the verification of artifact signatures, for example by making the current version of metadata unavailable. | ||
5. Prevent a party from learning about updates to currently installed artifacts. | ||
6. Convince a party to download large amounts of data, such as signatures or metadata, that interfere with the party's system. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We discussed removing this in favor of the registry-defined data size, but upon reflection I think there could be value in including this limit in signed and verifiable metadata (so that an attacker couldn't alter it in transit, etc). But I'd appreciate input from folks on the registry side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I moved this requirement to out of scope, with a note that the registry should consider this attack (like opencontainers/distribution-spec#260)
Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
@mnm678 Would you mind closing this PR since no activities for more than 1 year? You can create a new issue to describe the problem if needed. Thanks. |
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 30 days. |
supersedes #35
Adds an attacker goals and out of scope section to the threat model.